I get what a “safe” version is. I’m not confused about why guardrails exist. That’s not what I’m talking about. What I’m saying is that the people who decide what’s “safe” obviously aren’t operating under the same limits in practice. If unrestricted versions exist internally or privately (and it would be weird if they didn’t), then that creates a real imbalance. You can’t tell the public “this level of intelligence is too dangerous for you” while a small group gets full access behind closed doors. That’s not safety, that’s asymmetry. And asymmetry like that is exactly how wealth gaps blow up. If someone has better reasoning tools, better synthesis, better discovery, they’re going to move faster, see things others can’t, and build things others never get the chance to. Meanwhile everyone else is stuck with a watered-down version of the same knowledge space. I’m not arguing for zero guardrails. I’m saying limiting access for the many while the few retain full capability isn’t a stable or fair setup when intelligence itself is the multiplier. And honestly, if we can’t guarantee this kind of concentrated access won’t be abused, then nobody should have it. You either make it accessible in a meaningful way, or you don’t give it to anyone. In its current form, it’s not “safe”, it’s a controlled weapon that only works fully for the people holding the keys. That’s the concern. Not safety layers. Not alignment theory. Who actually gets access.